Evangelical Disconnect

Originally Posted by Bro Deal

Flip on Faux News sometime and watch Bush and his crusade against Islam.


It is very much different. Evangelical christians define "achieving the lifestyle they want" as restricting the rights of others to achieve the lifestyles they want.

In the latest news, conservative loons in West Virginia are attempting to ban Pat Conroy's books.

Originally Posted by Bro Deal

Hillary's team revealed it to torpedo him as a possible vice presidential candidate? Possible. I am not sure how probable Edwards was of being chosen as VP. He was not very effective as Kerry's choice. It might not make sense for the Clintons to damage him. Then again, the Clintons have always been extremely vindictive, and Bill is angry as hell that he has been tarred with the racist brush.

McCain has to be a little worried about this. He has a long history of cheating on his wives, right up to the present.

Originally Posted by ndbiker

I thought he was on a crusade because of oil now it's about religion? I do not remember the president ever saying one word against the religion of Islam only against those who use the religion as justification for blowing up buildings or other people.

Originally Posted by C'dale Girl

I sincerely do not get why we as a people think a politician's personal affairs are our business.....

Originally Posted by garage sale GT

Unwillingness to keep a contract says a lot about one's character.

Originally Posted by Crankyfeet

With due respect Lim and nothing personal intended... NNS was not saying that the US "saved civilisation" in my interpretation. She was paraphrasing your allegation and making a rebuttal explaining the rationale behind the viewpoints of the US people you were describing.

Also... I think her point was that the US generally cop flack and criticism for a lot of their foreign policy and actions on the world stage (some of that criticism being justified she admits)... but the appreciation for the good and help the US has provided is awfully quiet in comparison.

The Allied forces won WWII. But the American assistance, both in soldiers and military supplies, was a very important factor that arguably tipped the balance significantly. You obviously are fully aware that GB (and Ireland) were fighting to save their own countries from German Nazi rule. The German invasion threat to America's soil was practically and realistically nonexistent (despite Hitler declaring war on the US... which seems about as crazy as Japan bombing Pearl Harbor in hindsight). America was there in major part to help a friend IMO (world political ramifications of Nazi European dominance notwithstanding).

I am in agreement with you on most subjects that come up in this forum Lim. I think that US foreign policy can be arrogant... as well as the attitude of some of it's loudest citizens and political figures. But I think European arrogance that Europeans know more about world history than any other country's peoples is also prevalent... as well as the Eurocentric bias to "world" history that Europeans seem to have... as a generalisation. You make personal judgments about NNS' knowledge that betray a tendency to stereotype US people. I agree that the UK and France have had a long history of colonization and have learnt a lot about occupation of other countries. But a lot of Europe's current generation ride on the coattails of that history I feel, without having any direct experience themselves. From my experience living in the US... the country has some extremely diverse viewpoints from different people within it's citizenship.... and until you live here IMO... it is easy to generalize too much on a uniform US trait/viewpoint (which I was guilty of doing before I came here).

Also... it is fairly obvious that you generally dislike America and Americans from your past posts in other threads. That may be affecting your objectivity a little...

Originally Posted by C'dale Girl

I sincerely do not get why we as a people think a politician's personal affairs are our business. I'm not married to the guy, so I couldn't care less whether he's cheating on his wife. As long as he's doing his damn job to the best of his abilities . . . that's all that matters to me. Whether or not Bill Clinton is getting hummers in the Oval Office has no bearing on my life, unless it interferes with his ability to do his job. Heck, if it cleared his mind so he could think more clearly regarding some big decision . . . have more Bill.

Instead, we made it a collosal affair so that the entire "scandal" SURELY weighed on his mind and interfered with his abilities to do the job we actually paid him to do.

Originally Posted by fscyclist

Ireland did not fight and maintained neutrality throughout WW2.

Originally Posted by Crankyfeet

With due respect Lim and nothing personal intended... NNS was not saying that the US "saved civilisation" in my interpretation. She was paraphrasing your allegation and making a rebuttal explaining the rationale behind the viewpoints of the US people you were describing.

Also... I think her point was that the US generally cop flack and criticism for a lot of their foreign policy and actions on the world stage (some of that criticism being justified she admits)... but the appreciation for the good and help the US has provided is awfully quiet in comparison.

Originally Posted by Crankyfeet

I think that US foreign policy can be arrogant... as well as the attitude of some of it's loudest citizens and political figures. But I think European arrogance that Europeans know more about world history than any other country's peoples is also prevalent... as well as the Eurocentric bias to "world" history that Europeans seem to have... as a generalisation. You make personal judgments about NNS' knowledge that betray a tendency to stereotype US people. I agree that the UK and France have had a long history of colonization and have learnt a lot about occupation of other countries. But a lot of Europe's current generation ride on the coattails of that history I feel, without having any direct experience themselves. From my experience living in the US... the country has some extremely diverse viewpoints from different people within it's citizenship.... and until you live here IMO... it is easy to generalize too much on a uniform US trait/viewpoint (which I was guilty of doing before I came here).

Also... it is fairly obvious that you generally dislike America and Americans from your past posts in other threads. That may be affecting your objectivity a little...

Originally Posted by limerickman

The rationale behind the viewpoint, that America saved Europe, is a (mis)perception which seems to be shared by a considerable amount of Americans.

My point was that as soon as current American foreign policy is questioned by non-Americans, some Americans get extremely defensive about their country's current foreign policy being questioned and they start harking back to events like WW2.

Anyone who has read the political/military/historical facts concerning WW2 would recognise that American input to WW2 was not the decisive factor
in the outcome of WW2.
That doesn't mean that Americas contribution was neglible.
Far from it.
But to suggest that US involvement in WW2 saved Europe or that America saved Europe in the aftermath of WW2 is incorrect.
And that's why I challenged NNS on this.
Maybe NNS did not intend to make that point - but reading the posts, it seemed lear to me that that was the point being made!




I know nothing about NNS - save that NNS told us that she is 41!

As regards America, I definitely do oppose the foreign policy of the US, particularly it's 21st century foreign policy.

Originally Posted by fscyclist

I think many people still think personal character and decisions provide evidence of how people will behave and act in their public roles. Bill Clinton exemplifies this. His philandering and harassment of others was a symptom of his overall character flaws which did carry over into public life. Despite this, was he still a good president? That's up for debate.

Originally Posted by wolfix

I am wondering if a Republican congress had anything to do with the strong economic situation we had when Clinton was President?
What policies did Clinton actually put in place while in office?
When we look at how our government operates, as far as the relationship between President and Congress, I personally think the standing President gets too much credit.

Originally Posted by limerickman

I'm not surprised by this response.

Is that what they teach you over there?
That your country saved civilisation?

With respect, you haven't got the first clue about what events saved civilisation.




And loads of people are still alive because of the many men/women - throughout the ALLIED nations in many locations - who fought throughout WW2.

You do your argument no favours at all by trying to claim credit for something which you, yourself, took no part in.
Not suprisingly, your response falls back in to the same defensive opinion exhibited by some Americans when their country's foreign policy is questioned.




Really?

I have two relatives who fought with US during WW2.

Never during any conversation with these people, have they tried to claim any credit for what they did.

Unlike you - they would never try to make grandiose claims about "saving civilisation" either.

You do your points no favours, NNS.

Originally Posted by nns1400

...but I would argue that the reaction to that goes to an opposite "extreme" so to speak, that the US shouldn't ever do anything unilaterally, and that the blessing of other nations is somehow...required...for American action. I'm sorry, I don't want a President who thinks that way either. (That ultimately sunk John Kerry, IMHO...) Or who thinks we should apologize for being the most powerful country in the world atm...